European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery
Volume 17, Issue 1 , Pages 15-21, January 1999

Factors Influencing the Development of Vein-graft Stenosis and their Significance for Clinical Management

  • M.M Idu

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery of the University Hospital Maastricht, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • J Buth

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery of the Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • W.C.J Hop

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics of the Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Ph Cuypers

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery of the Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • E.D.W.M van de Pavoordt

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery of the Sint Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • J.M.H Tordoir

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery of the University Hospital Maastricht, The Netherlands

Accepted 27 May 1998.

Article Outline

Abstract 

Objectivesto assess the influence of clinical and graft factors on the development of stenotic lesions. In addition the implications of any significant correlation for duplex surveillance schedules or surgical bypass techniques was examined.Patients and methodsin a prospective three centre study, preoperative and peroperative data on 300 infrainguinal autologous vein grafts was analysed. All grafts were monitored by a strict duplex surveillance program and all received an angiogram in the first postoperative year. A revision was only performed if there was evidence of a stenosis of 70% diameter reduction or greater on the angiogram.Resultsthe minimum graft diameter was the only factor correlated significantly with the development of asignificant graft stenosis(PSV-ratio ≥2.5) during follow-up (p=0.002). Factors that correlated with the development ofevent-causing graft stenosis, associated with revision or occlusion, were minimal graft diameter (p=0.001), the use of a venovenous anastomosis (p=0.005) and length of the graft (p=0.025). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that the minimal graft diameter was the only independent factor that significantly correlated with anevent-causing graft stenosis(p=0.009). The stenosis-free rates for grafts with a minimal diameter <3.5 mm, between 3.5–4.5 and ≥4.5 mm were 40%, 58% and 75%, respectively (p=<0.05). Composite vein and arm-vein grafts with minimal diameters ≥3.5 mm were compared with grafts which consisted of a single uninterrupted greater saphenous vein with a minimal diameter of <3.5 mm. One-year secondary patency rates in these categories were of 94% and 76%, respectively (p=0.03).Conclusionsa minimal graft diameter <3.5 mm was the only factor that significantly correlated with the development of a graft-stenosis. However, veins with larger diameters may still develop stenotic lesions. Composite vein and arm-vein grafts should be used rather than uninterrupted small caliber saphenous veins.

Keywords: Infrainguinal vein graft, Vein-graft stenosis, Graft surveillance, Graft factors.

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

 

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Kunlin J. Le traitement de l»arterite obliterante par la greffe veineuse. Arch Chir Mal Coeur. 1949;42:371–372
  2. Szilagyi DE, Eliot JP, Haglesman JH, Smith RF, Sallolmo CA. Biological fate of autologous vein implants as arterial substitutes. Ann Surg. 1973;178:232–246
  3. Grigg MJ, Nicolaides AN, Wolfe JHN. Femorodistal vein bypass graft stenosis. Br J Surg. 1988;75:737–740
  4. Sladen JG, Gilmour JL. Vein graft stenosis: characteristics and effect of treatment. Am J Surg. 1981;41:549–553
  5. Whittemore AD, Clowes AW, Couch NP, Mannick JA. Secondary femoropopliteal reconstruction. Ann Surg. 1981;193:35–42
  6. Wilson YG, Davies AH, Currie IC. Vein graft stenosis: incidence and intervention. Eur J Endovasc Surg. 1996;11:164–169
  7. Idu MM, Truyen E, Buth J. Surveillance of lower extremity vein grafts. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1992;6:456–462
  8. Bandyk DF, Schmitt DD, Seabrook GR, Adams MB, Towne JB. Monitoring functional patency ofin situ. J Vasc Surg. 1989;9:286–296
  9. Cohen JR, Mannick JA, Couch NP, Whittemore AD. Recognition and management of impending vein-graft failure. Importance for long-term patency. Arch Surg. 1986;121:758–759
  10. Moody P, Gould DA, Harris PL. Vein graft surveillance improves patency in femoropopliteal bypass. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1990;4:117–121
  11. Lundell A, Lindblad B, Bergqvist D, Hansen F. Femoropopliteal-crural graft patency is improved by an intensive surveillance program: a prospective randomized study. J Vasc Surg. 1995;21:26–34
  12. Idu MM, Blankensteyn JD, de Gier P, Truyen E, Buth J. Impact of a color-flow duplex surveillance program on infrainguinal vein graft patency. A 5-year experience. J Vasc Surg. 1993;17:42–53
  13. Disselhoff B, Buth J, Jakimowicz J. Early detection of stenosis of femorodistal grafts. A surveillance study using colour-duplex scanning. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1989;3:43–48
  14. Barnes RW, Thompson BW, MacDonald CM. Serial non-invasive studies do not herald postoperative failure of femoropopliteal or femorotibial bypass grafts. Ann Surg. 1989;210:486–494
  15. Green RM, McNamarra J, Ouriel K, DeWeese JA. Comparison of infrainguinal graft surveillance techniques. J Vasc Surg. 1990;11:207–215
  16. Brennan JA, Walsh AKM, Bard JD, Bolia AA, Bell PRF. The role of simple non-invasive testing in infrainguinal vein graft surveillance. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1991;5:13–17
  17. Bandyk DF. Postoperative surveillance of infrainguinal bypass. Surg Clin North Am. 1990;70:71–85
  18. Taylor PR, Wolfe JHN, Tyrrell MR, Mansfield AO, Nicolaides AN, Houston RN. Graft stenosis: justification for 1-year surveillance. Br J Surg. 1990;77:1125–1128
  19. Mohan CR, Hoballah JJ, Schueppert MT. Should allin situ. Arch Surg. 1995;130:483–488
  20. Rutherford RB, Flanigan DP, Gupta SK. Suggested standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 1986;4:84–84
  21. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J R Statist Soc (series B). 1972;34:187–220
  22. Towne JB. Role of fibrointimal hyperplasia in vein graft failure. J Vasc Surg. 1989;10:583–585
  23. Varty K, London NJ, Brennan JA. Infragenicularin situ. J Vasc Surg. 1993;7:567–571
  24. Wengerter KR, Veith FJ, Gupta SK. Influence of vein size (diameter) on infrapopliteal reversed vein graft patency. J Vasc Surg. 1990;11:525–531
  25. Towne JB, Schmitt DD, Seabrook GR, Bandijk DF. The effect of vein diameter on early patency and durability ofin-situ. J Cardiovasc Surg. 1989;30:64
  26. Marin ML, Veith FJ, Panetta TF, Gordon RE, Wengerter KR, Suggs WD, et al. Saphenous vein biopsy: a predictor of vein graft failure. J Vasc Surg. 1993;18:407–414
  27. Panetta TF, Marin ML, Veith FJ, Goldsmith J, Gordon RE, Jones AM, et al. Unsuspected pre-existing saphenous vein disease: an unrecognized cause of vein bypass failure. J Vasc Surg. 1992;15:102–110
  28. Bandyk DF, Johnson BL, Gupta AK, Esses GE. Nature and management of duplex abnormalities encountered during infrainguinal vein bypass grafting. J Vasc Surg. 1996;24:430–438
  29. Balshi, JD, The use of arm veins for infrainguinal bypass in end-stage peripheral vascular disease, Arch Surg, 124, 1078, 1081
  30. Londrey GL, Bosher LP, Brown PW. Infrainguinal reconstruction with arm vein, lesser saphenous vein, and remnants of greater saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 1994;20:451–457
  31. Chang BB, Darling RC, Bock DE. The use of spliced vein bypasses for infrainguinal arterial reconstruction. J Vasc Surg. 1995;21:403–412
  32. Gentile AT, Lee RW, Moneta GL. Results of bypass to the popliteal and tibial arteries with alternative sources of autogenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 1996;23:272–280
  33. Rosenbloom MS, Walsh JJ, Schuler JJ. Long-term results of infragenicular bypasses with autogenous vein, originating from the distal superficial femoral and popliteal arteries. J Vasc Surg. 1988;7:691–696
  34. Wengerter KR, Yang PM, Veith FJ, Gupta SK, Panetta TF. A 12-year experience with the popliteal-to-distal artery bypass. J Vasc Surg. 1992;15:143–151
  35. Parsons RE, Suggs WD, Veith FJ. Polytetrafluoroethylene bypasses to infrapopliteal arteries without cuffs or patches: a better option than amputation in patients without autologous vein. J Vasc Surg. 1996;23:347–354
  36. Morris GE, Raptis S, Miller JH, Faris IB. Femorocrural grafting and regrafting: does polytetrafluoroethylene have a role?. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1993;7:329–334
  37. Van de Pavoordt HD, Eikelboom BC, De Geest R, Vermeulen FE. Results of prosthetic grafts in femoro-crural bypass operations as compared to autogenous saphenous vein grafts. Neth J Surg. 1986;38:177–179
  38. Veith FJ, Gupta SK, Ascer E, White-Flores S, Samson RH, Scher LA, et al. Six-year prospective multicentre randomized comparison of autologous saphenous vein and expanded polytetrafluoro- ethylene grafts in infrainguinal arterial reconstructions. J Vasc Surg. 1986;3:104–114
  39. Harward TRS, Coe D, Flynn TC, Seeger JM. The use of arm vein conduits during infrageniculate arterial bypass. J Vasc Surg. 1992;16:420–427
  40. Chalmers RTA, Hoballah JJ, Kresowik TF. The impact of color-duplex surveillance on the outcome of lower limb bypass with segments of arm veins. J Vasc Surg. 1994;19:279–288
  • f1 Please address all correspondence to: M. M. Idu, Geerpolderweg 8, 2807 LS Gouda, The Netherlands.

PII: S1078-5884(98)90676-1

doi:10.1053/ejvs.1998.0676

European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery
Volume 17, Issue 1 , Pages 15-21, January 1999

Article Tools